The government's proposed Psychoactive Substances Bill would create the offences of "Supplying a psychoactive substance" and "Possession of a psychoactive substance with intent to supply". Only a few substances would be exempt: alcohol, nicotine and caffeine. Although the stated motivation for the bill is to reduce the use of novel psychoactive substances (NPS), legal highs used for decades such as nitrous oxide (laughing gas) and amyl nitrate (poppers) would be caught under the proposed legislation.

The risks of psychoactive substances vary considerably, but nitrous oxide has been described as "exceptionally safe" by David Nutt, professor of neuropsychopharmacology at Imperial College, London and former UK government drugs adviser. When inhaled via a balloon, the most common method of ingestion, serious health problems are vanishingly rare.

With this bill, the government has given up any pretence that it classifies drugs on the basis of harm. The reality is clear: this is a moral crusade. The government believes that altering your state of mind using psychoactive plants or chemicals is simply wrong. It doesn't care that the use of some drugs is much safer than the the use of others, or safer than other activities, like horseriding.

What of the exemptions for alcohol, nicotine and caffeine? When I wrote to the Home Office asking why they were excluding these substances, I got the following reply: "The means by which alcohol and tobacco are regulated is embedded in historical tradition and the tolerance of responsible consumption." Let's consider that. Drug policy is based on 'historical tradition' rather than, say, established science. And really the 'tolerance of responsible consumption' of alcohol simply highlights an irrational intolerance when it comes to other substances.

It's worth noting that the legislation is unlikely to even achieve its aim of reducing use of novel psychoactive substances. Since similar legislation was enacted in Ireland in 2010, NPS use has actually increased from 16% in 2011 to 22% in 2014, with use amongst young people the highest in the EU. It is true that a small number of people have developed health problems from the overuse of a few NPS that attempt to mimic established but currently prohibited drugs such as cannabis and MDMA. The best solution in this case is to make cannabis and MDMA available through legally regulated outlets, along with the provision of quality drug education on how to use these substances safely. There is, for example, no market for synthetic cannabis in the Netherlands where cannabis is sold from licensed premises.

The Psychedelic Society believes prohibition is an affront to the basic right of bodily autonomy: the right to do whatever we want with our own bodies. Yes, the use of psychoactive substances can be risky, but it should be for individuals to decide whether or not to take the risk. People should be able to buy, sell and use whatever substances they want, so long as there's no harm to others.

To show our support for the legal regulation of drugs as an alternative to prohibition, on Saturday, hundreds of people will gather outside Parliament for a mass inhalation of nitrous oxide. We'll charge our balloons, and as the clock strikes 3pm, we'll all inhale together in a sea of coloured rubber.

The fact is most people enjoy using drugs, whether nitrous oxide, coffee or alcohol, and that careful legal regulation is the fairest and safest solution. Rather than follow the failed path of prohibition, the government should be looking to the United States, where cannabis is now entirely legal in four states, with many more soon to follow.

The war on drugs is ending. Let's hope our government gets the memo.

Stephen Reid is the director of The Psychedelic Society

-- This feed and its contents are the property of The Huffington Post, and use is subject to our terms. It may be used for personal consumption, but may not be distributed on a website.

]]>http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/anastasia-dedyukhina/digital-detox_b_7856892.htmlAnastasia Dedyukhinahttp://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/anastasia-dedyukhina/digital-detox_b_7856892.html?utm_hp_ref=uk-tech&ir=UK+Tech
Fri, 31 Jul 2015 12:53:14 -0400Before sitting down to watch television, my great great grandmother would always wear her best dress, do her hair, and put the make up on. When asked about the reasons of this peculiar behaviour, she would reply: "But what if THEY (meaning people in the TV set) are watching me as well?"

Fast forward 70 years, and it turns out my great great grandma was not so wrong.

An active user of any modern technology is always available. You have the benefit of accessing any information, wherever and whenever you want it, but at the same time you become always accessible as well. Anyone can call or text you at any given moment in time. Just like my great grandmother felt herself permanently exposed in front of the ubiquitous eye of a TV set, so do we find it increasingly difficult to put the boundaries between our online and offline lives, and keep control of our agenda.

An increasing sense of overwhelm, fatigue and a lack of control over my life were the main reasons that got me to seriously consider digital detox. I've spent 12+ years in senior digital marketing positions with global internet brands, which means I was connected pretty much all the time I was not sleeping. I sometimes slept with my phone as well. Clients loved to be connected all the time, and were expecting me to do that, too. Remarkable is the fact that my responses at 3am on weekends to the client requests did not seem to help much, as clients always had another five questions to ask, and so we were constantly looped in digital communication without making much progress. You know the feeling when you spend the whole day replying to emails, and at the end of the day you walk out of the office with the question - what exactly have I done today? This was my story. I was stressed, the client was stressed, the team was exhausted, and emails just kept arriving.

Giving up my smartphone

I somehow made it until the end of my last contract, and when I was done, I decided I wanted to have some headspace to think about what's next, and cutting the time I spend online will help me with that. I switched off all notifications on the phone, took the Facebook app off and logged out of the email. Little did I know about how our brain works at the time. I lasted about half a day, when I discovered myself logging into Facebook through an internet browser and not the app, and checking manually about 10 times whether a new email has arrived. I didn't want to do it and I kept doing it.

Long story short, I tried various tricks including blocking apps, but the only thing that seemed to work 100% was when I didn't have my smartphone with me. So after a few months of trying to make it work I decided to give it up altogether, and exchanged it for a very basic Nokia, that could only receive and send text messages. My smartphone was inherited by my mother, who now reports becoming totally addicted to Facebook and thinks of passing it to my grandmother.

Not having a smartphone has produced unexpected results. In addition to the much-anticipated sense of regaining control over my life and an improved quality of sleep, I suddenly started talking more to real people. It didn't just happen at bus stops when I was trying to figure out when the next bus was due, or trying to find my way around the city. I simply was finding it much easier and more natural to talk to total strangers. Looking back at that, I think this was probably due to how much more attentive I became to the outside world, as well as my brain attempting to occupy itself with something (in this case, conversations) when it was deprived of the screen time. Another unexpected result of giving up my smartphone was the creation of my business, Consciously Digital, that helps people remain productive in an age of digital distraction.

Walking my talk

Giving up my smartphone was the first step, and several weeks ago I decided to go deeper and declutter my home. Being self-employed, I somewhat struggle to put the boundary between work and non-work, especially because still most of the marketing for my business if through online. Although I got rid of my smartphone, I still would end up every so often working in bed with the laptop on my chest at night. Not too cool for someone who's running a digital detox training business, you know, and not helping much my productivity either. My will power muscle isn't well trained, and for me the only way not to eat any chocolate is not to buy any chocolate. So I took a radical step and got rid of all tech devices at home, either moving them into my office (they're productivity tools after all, aren't they?) or selling them.

Boy, this was much harder than the first step. It was ok not to be connected when I was in the street and something was happening around, but when all of a sudden I was at home taking the well-deserved rest, my brain instantly started reminding me about 100 things I could be doing online. I felt such an urge to immediately make a correction to my blog post whenever I came home after work, that after a few days of moving my laptop to the office I started taking it back home. I consciously had to stop myself from doing that. Taking into account that I tend to get more things done in the office than at home, I understand that my brain is still struggling to accept the artificial boundary I've created between my working and non-working time. However, I keep training it every day, and I see my overall awareness and time management skills slowly improving.

What I've learned

In these 6 months of digital detoxing, I've learned quite a lot of things about myself and how my brain works.

First, I realized I was spending way more time online than I thought I was. This is quite a typical, and I start my courses by asking people how much time they think they spend online, and then suggesting to take a test or install an app to track how much time they really are connected. It turns out, on average we underestimate how much time we're connected by 2 hours.

Second, I felt that the impact of being always on had much bigger influence on me than I had thought. The moment I took back the control of my agenda and claimed my non-screen time, I started feeling much calmer and more in charge of my life. All it took was to switch off notifications and not to rush to respond to every incoming message or call.

Third, I hate to admit it, but I discovered I am much more addicted than I thought I was. Even in my best days, my fingers automatically opened Facebook when I was supposed to be writing a blog. I had to use all the possible online blocking apps, and offline self-management techniques, including mindfulness, to keep myself on track daily. The moment I feel tired, and am not controlling my online behaviour, I can easily slip into the old pattern.

Fourth, with the success of digital detox, I inevitably started being more aware of my physical state and my food preferences. Taking control over one area of my life made me start doing exercise on a daily basis (something I could never make myself do for years), and watch more carefully what I'm eating. I also noticed that on the days when I'm overloaded with internet, I tend to ignore my diet and exercise routine, and so try to make a conscious effort to stick to it. Being conscious in what I do online also made me more conscious about what I do in the real world.

-- This feed and its contents are the property of The Huffington Post, and use is subject to our terms. It may be used for personal consumption, but may not be distributed on a website.

]]>http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/beatrice-pembroke/noone-can-do-it-alone-ope_b_7906372.htmlBeatrice Pembrokehttp://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/beatrice-pembroke/noone-can-do-it-alone-ope_b_7906372.html?utm_hp_ref=uk-tech&ir=UK+Tech
Fri, 31 Jul 2015 06:47:34 -0400Global Entrepreneurship Summit, where he joined leading figures from across the continent to highlight how important entrepreneurship will be in 'keeping Africa on the move'. In the next five years, 122 million young Africans will enter the employment market. Tens of millions are currently unemployed or underemployed. New ways are needed to generate jobs.

At the British Council, we want to make a contribution to creating an entrepreneurship of the future; one which is sustainable, inventive and equitable. Locally driven and globally relevant. That sort of entrepreneurship should be assisted by a variety of different agencies working together to support hubs of innovation; cross-disciplinary, collaborative, creative spaces which connect resourceful people with local experience, digital tools and investment to power the next generation of African ventures.

The challenge - blocks to ambition

There's no shortage of ambition in Sub-Saharan Africa. The region has the highest percentage (60%) of 18-34 year olds who believe they could create a business out of local opportunities.

Turning that ambition into practice, however, can be more difficult.

A new report from the Tony Elumelu Foundation showed that 60% of the 2000 respondents surveyed thought that starting a business was very difficult. Moreover, 65% said they required additional skills to be successful - both for themselves and their employees.

Money remains an issue. Nearly 90% of respondents named getting start-up capital as one of their most significant challenges. Links to professional networks, corruption, ineffectual intellectual property rights and an over-regulated ICT sector were also identified as blocks to business.

Existing physical infrastructure is also a problem. Millions of people in Sub-Saharan Africa live without electricity and many more experience rolling electricity blackouts. Consequently, more than 50% of Sub-Saharan businesses identify unreliable electricity as a major constraint.

Rule breaking and a culture of collaboration

Challenges abound, then, for African entrepreneurs. But, as Brian Bergstein at MIT said recently: "very big problems often get solved with collaborations from many disciplines and a willingness to break some rules."

The rule breaking could begin by fostering skills that are relevant to the 21st century, like communication, creativity, critical thinking and collaboration, as well as how to harness emerging technology in imaginative ways. Conventional educational systems, focussed on theoretical skills, may not be the best way to prepare people to create innovative new enterprises.

Collaboration has in many ways become easier with new technology. The Internet has driven openness, transparency and rapid prototyping. Crowdfunding means that ideas can now be more easily implemented and social networks facilitate global collaboration and open innovation.

Rapid change and openness is not limited to life on the Internet. A number of innovation hubs based on open source principles are emerging across the world. This approach is also not confined to startups, as traditional companies and institutions now have the chance to reinvent themselves, their research and development to be ready for the 21st century.

A global hub for new ideas

Africa is already home to some world-leading and ingenious enterprises. The boom in mobile phone usage, innovative consumer finance techniques such as M-Pesa, creative business models and breakthroughs with energy supplies (like increased battery capacity and the declining cost of solar power) has set the scene for innovative businesses.

These are not just important locally. They also have global relevance, as examples of sustainable businesses that use technology for social change. Not just tech entrepreneurship, but tech for good.

Take Off Grid Electric in Tanzania. They combine basic battery technology with photovoltaic energy. For 65 cents a day, they offer 2-5 LED lights, a cell-phone charger, and a radio. In the last year, they've doubled their number of users and they aim to light a million homes by 2018.

Or look at Recell Ghana, which reduces e-waste and creates employment opportunities through phone and tablet recycling. They work on product sustainability with Fairphone, the Amsterdam-based social enterprise which designs and produces smartphones which cause minimal harm to people and the planet.

Another example of an enterprise which could be replicated elsewhere is found in rural Mpumalanga in South Africa. The community-based newspaper Ziwaphi monitors water quality in the rivers by using old smartphones submerged in plastic bottles. The inbuilt cameras in the phones take regular flash-lit pictures. These are then magnified and compared to an existing database which detects dangerous levels of E.coli. Ziwaphi's readers are sent this information via SMS, which lets them know which rivers to collect water from, and which ones to avoid. Once a month, Ziwaphi also publishes an in-depth story about the results.

The creative sector and economic growth

These examples of ventures which combine creativity, design thinking and technological skill are great, but more are needed. Technological progress is nothing without locally relevant, compelling content; designed with the user in mind and the power of imagination. It was heartening to see the value of the creative sector was emphasised by the special session at Obama's Global Entrepreneurship summit about the Creative Economy. A 2013 UN report identified the creative economy as one of the fastest growing in the world. Despite the global financial crisis of 2008, the sector has doubled in the last decade. As millions more go online, global trade and domestic demand for creative goods and services is set to increase.

Value beyond numbers

The creative and cultural industries don't just contribute to export earnings and job creation. Storytelling allows us to develop our identities - on a personal, community and national level. By expressing ourselves, we have the power to self-define and relate to each other. All of which is increasingly important on our globalised stage.

Cultural understanding and a critical space for reflection is also crucial to consider the ethicacy of new technology and its purpose. We don't want to live in a technocracy where we just engineer whatever is possible when we can think about how we shape our world and why.

The creative sector in Africa

Despite a seeming international increase in recognition of African creativity, however, from the popularity of Nollywood to Graphic Africa at London Design Festival, recent research shows that Africa's share of the global creative economy is less than 1%. Statistics in some African countries show a dramatic increase in foreign cultural products being imported, without significant increase in cultural exports.

Sharing skills and spaces for the creative sector

Part of what's needed to shift that balance is putting creative people in touch with each other and giving them the skills and resources to promote their work. The British Council, together with local partners and international agencies, has delivered and supported several programmes that encourage enterprise and digital confidence in the creative and cultural sector.

Working with UK innovation charity Nesta, the British Council has translated Nesta's Creative Enterprise toolkit into several languages, including local case studies and trainers. The project has successfully built hundreds of new ventures, by offering aspiring creative entrepreneurs a four-day workshop on how to develop, test and turn their creative ideas into sustainable practice. The participants not only gain practical skills like branding, financing and digital but also a shift in mindset; the confidence to share with a strong peer network.

We seek to foster this spirit of open collaboration with all our programmes. CultureShift, part of ongoing programmes in Lagos, Cairo, Johannesburg, Nairobi and Harare, is a hackday that brings together artists, designers and technologists with business knowhow to imagine new solutions and products that can respond to local challenges.

The Makerlibrary Network is an international platform connecting designers and makers through networked spaces where they can exchange ideas, swap skills and share resources as well as prototype with new design and digital tools.

In September, we launch another Innovation ZA month of public events and activities in Johannesburg alongside Fak' ugesi: Digital Africa Festival with market hacks, digital residencies and skills workshops. Later this year, we will welcome the Playable City to Lagos, developing imaginative interventions with local partners that re-think public spaces and smart city technology.

Innovation hubs: homes for new ventures and social change

Fostering the right environment for collaboration is key. There are now more than 90 tech hubs across Africa, according to the World Bank. There's also a growing number of other innovation spaces like makerspaces, accelerators, clusters and incubators. Places where inventive people from different backgrounds can find unlikely allies, inspiration, resources and investment. Where they can test new business models and prototype with the latest design and digital tools. Hub convenors and their members are driving local economic growth; they make the connections between creative, social, technological and entrepreneurial possible.

The British Council is proud to be working with several of these organisations, such as CcHub, SwahiliBox, Pawa254 to run programmes. We are also mapping and connecting them through Open Movement, a new global platform. 85% of global growth comes from small start-ups and the number of freelancers is ever increasing; hubs provide a home to what can be an otherwise isolating and lonely existence. Increasingly, makerspaces and innovation hubs are seeking to promote women and marginalised communities, encouraging social inclusion.

That's why Obama's Global Entrepreneurship Summit was right to give attention to innovation hubs, organisations which are sometimes undervalued or at least poorly understood. Despite their potential value, many of them have problems with financial sustainability and access, which networks like Afrilabs seek to address.

Working together for global learning

This work cannot be done by any one organisation alone. In September, the British Council will be working with Indigo Trust and Hivos to gather a small number of agencies, both public and private, who are interested in supporting African innovation hubs. As international and local development agencies, cultural organisations and private enterprise we also need to join up - to understand that collectively we can pool our resources and learning for more effective global development.

Beatrice Pembroke is Director of Creative Economy at British Council, which supports international collaborations, innovation and enterprise with the creative and cultural industries. She is also co-founder of techforgood.global.

-- This feed and its contents are the property of The Huffington Post, and use is subject to our terms. It may be used for personal consumption, but may not be distributed on a website.

2015 looks set to be an historical year for internet leviathan Google, and much of this is in the making leading up to August 17th. While the US corporation has recently announced profit increase in the second quarter - a whopping 11% boost to $17.7 billion compared to last year - the deadline marks the final bell for the biggest online search engine to respond to antitrust claims made by the European Commission in April this year.

Following lengthy analysis of Google's business practices, the EC has come to the conclusion that Google has used its dominance in search to effectively restrict competition in online comparison shopping, while many other areas remain under investigation. The crux of the matter arises from Google operating both the world's most frequently used search engine (reports corroborate that Google retained over 75% of US search traffic at the start of the year, with an even bigger market share reaching over 90% in Europe) and, at the same time, offering a wide range of products competing with other businesses. Far from being an unbiased organiser of the internet's information, Google stands accused of systematically inserting its own services at the top of its search results.

The EC's claims, however, are not the result of an overnight decision, with their investigation having been corroborated over the past five years - with competition commissioner Margrethe Vestager now helming the charges. Vestager's predecessor, Joaquίn Almunia, attempted to take Google to task to reach a settlement on no less than three occasions - all of which failed due to widespread opposition of many in the internet ecosystem. However, it seems that the stalemate may be ending with the investigation reaching climax within weeks now.

The EC argues that Google's business model - which combines the operation of the most widely-used search platform in the world with entrenching itself deeper in various verticals including online mapping, shopping, video and news - has led to anti-competitive business practices which have harmed competitors and consumers alike. It is this 'split personality' that has led some to argue that Google is suffering from an identity crisis - in that it is attempting to operate as a neutral search platform alongside cross-promotion of its own services.

It is systematic favouring of its own products (even when inferior to competitors) whilst demoting rivals in search results that the EC has determined to be anti-competitive. Google's power to drive users to products derived from its dominance of internet search has, it is argued, caused significant harm both to competitors and to consumers. The Statement of Objections, or SO, is therefore an indictment on Google's business model. Google now has the opportunity to respond to these findings and faces not only penalties but changes to its practices.

Google requested an extension to the deadline for response, and was granted an extra ten weeks for defence to be prepared. However, as the deadline creeps closer, Google is under considerable pressure to have prepared a reasonable opposition to the SO, particularly given the additional time that they have been granted.

Google is no stranger to legal controversy, having entered into a class action lawsuit in 2014 relating to 'choking' of internet searching - a case in which representatives Hagens Berman claim that Google suppresses its competition by unfairly preinstalling its applications on Android devices. The firm advises that the controversy is still 'open' - and the SO may see Google bowing to changes and restrictions in order to promote fairer competition. The EC has also opened an investigation into whether or not the US corporation has breached antitrust guidelines, making reference to the running of their Android operating system.

The EC's case is bolstered by significant evidence - Nineteen official complainants, plus many more organisations raising concerns and providing information, have shown enough cause to propose potential sanctions against the company. The EC proposes that the complainants have witnessed Google distorting search results to better promote their own products - that such manipulation is anti-competition - and that the case could lead to changes in online business the world over.

The implications, dependent on Google's reception, may not solely relate to business changes - the EU fined Microsoft a sizeable $731 million in 2013 after failing to offer internet browser alternatives to Internet Explorer on Windows-operating systems - and depending on how Google reacts, fines of a similar stature may be forthcoming in this case.

Google has the option to call for a hearing on the claims and can attend a public forum to face its accusers. It is likely that it could use this, as well as its considerable PR might and deep pockets, to try to appeal over the heads of EU officials and claim to be a vital engine of innovation and consumer empowerment. The hard evidence from complainants and from many other internet businesses would likely contradict these claims.

It has been stated that the EU could not only restrict business practices but may also impose sanctions heading into several billions of dollars - meaning it is likely Google will fight its corner. However, Google has not yet begun its fight, having remained tight-lipped on the issue - while many assume they are preparing for a battle in Europe that, if lost, could cause a large dent in revenue alongside legislative changes. Offering little information outright, a leaked internal memo from Google General Counsel Kent Walker suggests that the company are building a defiant case. Allegedly backed up by data later shown to be misleading or incomplete, Google's position in this memo states that competition with their products is healthy and that they have a 'strong case' against the SO. It remains to be seen if the EU Commission will be convinced by these arguments.

With August 17th looming and little other than speculation available, the world of online business and the corporations critiquing Google's practices will be holding their collective breaths as events unfold over the coming weeks.

-- This feed and its contents are the property of The Huffington Post, and use is subject to our terms. It may be used for personal consumption, but may not be distributed on a website.

Last quarter, Twitter attracted two million new users, bringing their total number of users to 304 million. On paper, those numbers may seem impressive, but this marks their smallest increase to date. Also, compare this to Facebook's 1.4 billion users, and suddenly the numbers might even be described as underwhelming.

What's gone wrong? According to Dorsey, Twitter's service has always been too complicated, and on the whole, most people still don't quite understand how to get any real value out of it.

Twitter is popular with celebrities, brands, activists, marketers, and anyone else who's taken the time to familiarise themselves with its unique properties. Yet, unlike Facebook, it's unlikely that your grandparents will be using Twitter any time soon.

Now, you'd be forgiven for thinking of this as a good thing. But in order for a social media platform to survive in our increasingly digital world, it might need to be accessible enough to attract your grandparents.

Investors apparently agree. Once Dorsey and Noto revealed that Twitter has stagnated, shares dropped by more than 10%.

This follows a long period of uncertainty over just who's in charge over at Twitter HQ. In June, CEO Dick Costolo stepped down. Jack Dorsey, who cofounded the platform, is acting as interim CEO.

His appointment, even if temporary, was intended to give their shares a lift. And though share prices soared in the hours before the conference call, Dorsey's candid revelations have seemingly caused investor confidence to fall to an all time low.

Twitter does have plans, though, not just to attract more followers, but also to make their service easier and more engaging to use:

Project Lightning, a new feature that's expected to go live this autumn, will allow users to follow live events through curated streams of tweets, photos, and videos

An algorithm change may display tweets in order of perceived relevance and value for the user, as opposed to the current reverse-chronological deluge

A revised marketing strategy to better communicate why anybody would want to use Twitter in the first place

While this all sounds very promising, no platform is too big to fail. Anybody who loves Twitter has likely engaged in a heated debate with a friend or relative who just doesn't see the point; and countless users have felt forced to flee Twitter in the wake of merciless harassment.

For those who see Twitter as pointless, and for those who think that the platform doesn't do enough to protect its users, these changes might be viewed as too little, too late.

But this does not mean that it's time to jump ship. A global audience of 304 million still offers a world of possibilities. Even if their growth has stalled, Twitter remains a genuinely engaging platform for any private users who know what they're doing; and it still has the potential to be a genuinely lucrative platform for businesses, brands, and marketers.

I'm reminded of two other social media platforms that once felt world-changing, but which now seem almost quaint - Google+ and MySpace. While Google+ is still used by a relatively small yet increasingly less dedicated global community, MySpace now feels like a relic from another age.

Will Twitter go the way of these one-time contenders? I doubt it. No platform that's used by both Beyoncé and One Direction can ever truly fade into obscurity; and a platform that arguably kickstarted the Arab Spring is more or less guaranteed a place in the history books.

It's just that, rather than the global behemoth it has the potential to be, Twitter might always remain a niche affair - embraced by millions, but misunderstood by most.

-- This feed and its contents are the property of The Huffington Post, and use is subject to our terms. It may be used for personal consumption, but may not be distributed on a website.

]]>http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/jon-buss/a-beautiful-mind-is-neuro_b_7884742.htmlJon Busshttp://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/jon-buss/a-beautiful-mind-is-neuro_b_7884742.html?utm_hp_ref=uk-tech&ir=UK+Tech
Fri, 31 Jul 2015 06:32:33 -0400
So why are marketers jumping on the neuromarketing bandwagon now? In the last 5 years, advances in technology and data analytics have ushered in a new wave of marketing for brands. Cookies alone, have created a digital footprint of consumers that allows brands to gain access to real-time data about a person's browsing and purchasing habits. While it has led to much more personalised online experiences for consumers, it's also increased saturation. Consumers are now on auto pilot when it comes to responding to the images being thrown at them and have become desensitised to the point where, according to Google, more than half of ads aren't seen.

In a recent study conducted by Criteo and Censuswide, a third of the British public only recall seeing one ad a day and know instantly whether they love or hate a brand. It's no longer enough to serve up personalised ads, brands need to start understanding how to appeal to the emotional triggers and subconscious in a way that will make consumers stop and click. That's where neuromarketing comes in.

Major online retailers such as ASOS, John Lewis and Next have used psychological stimulants on their websites to entice consumers to stay online for longer or add an item to their online shopping cart, with great effect. While other brands have used it for brand positioning to gain an understanding of how consumers will respond emotionally to certain marketing and advertising campaigns.

KFC is a great example. With a saturated market of fast food chains and the increasing importance of 'healthy living' for today's consumers, the business is fighting for market share - despite being such an iconic brand. This year marks its 50th anniversary and using neurostudies of consumer behaviour it's repositioning to appeal to the emotions of its restaurant goers - focusing less on the love of their product and more on the love of the brand. That's permeated through its latest TV ad campaigns, digital and will be seen via a revamp in stores as well. It's worked for the likes of McDonalds and Weight Watchers, so it will be interesting to see how it plays out for KFC.

When it comes to online advertising, neuromarketing is still in its infancy and some experts believe it can be misleading. Clinical psychologist Vaughn Bell, claims that neuromarketing is a legitimate research area of cognitive science, but the results are 'abstract and ultra-focused' - making them far from applicable in everyday use. Eye tracking technology is often placed under the neuromarketing umbrella, but it's not technically a brain response test. True understanding of neuromarketing is fairly limited in the marketing world, and for me, I have yet to see it used in a way that produces real-time results that shed light on what's driving consumer decisions.

The Censuswide and Criteo study looked into the British public's attitudes towards online advertising and shopping revealed that colour, personalisation, and repetition emerged as the most common elements that convert consumers from browser to buyer.

Renowned web psychologist and author of Webs of Influence: The Psychology of Online Persuasion, Natalie Nahai believes that colour is a powerful persuasion tool online. According to the study only 24 per cent of respondents said they were most attracted to the colour red, yet over half said they were attracted to flash sales and offers - which are more often than not red. An indication that our subconscious is driving our desire to click.

It's not just neuromarketing, emotional response testing has become a staple in the marketing research toolkit. Facial coding, for example, is edging out in front of some of the other methods such as eye tracking and being used by top agencies like Millward Brown. It's the ability to monitor and test emotional responses based entirely on facial reactions and is often used before marketing content is launched to gauge consumers' subconscious reaction. While these automated methods of emotional tracking are great insight tools, what's missing is the 'why' consumers are reacting that way or what exactly in the ad has caused it? It's all subjective and no one has the silver bullet - yet.

Whatever the future holds for the industry, personalisation will remain at the heart of effective advertising. Consumers want to be seen as individuals rather than grouped by gender or trendy demographic clusters such as millennials or baby boomers. And as consumers become more sophisticated about online tracking methods, it's our responsibility to do so in a way that is rooted in integrity, transparency and gives consumers an opportunity to opt-in or out. Otherwise it can have a damaging impact for us all.

At the end of the day, the mind is a fascinating tool and what drives human decision-making will continue to keep marketers up at night - whether we understand the brain or not.

-- This feed and its contents are the property of The Huffington Post, and use is subject to our terms. It may be used for personal consumption, but may not be distributed on a website.

]]>http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/carys-roberts/uber-future-of-work_b_7895310.htmlCarys Robertshttp://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/carys-roberts/uber-future-of-work_b_7895310.html?utm_hp_ref=uk-tech&ir=UK+Tech
Thu, 30 Jul 2015 15:50:31 -0400 the charge levelled to the company this week by two researchers at a New York think tank. They argue that the app creates a 'mirage' of a marketplace but in fact is masking a traditional employer-employee relationship.

An Uber driver has now been classified as an employee in a US court. This latest controversy has brought the debate over the 'sharing economy' to a new level of intensity. Presidential hopeful, Hilary Clinton has accused the sector of wage theft and is considering a third category of worker between 'contractor' and 'employee'.

Commentators on the 'future of work' swing between the apocalyptic 'rise of the robots' and utopian visions of a world in which power structures have withered away. The reality is likely to be somewhere in between. But the debates over how to regulate a company like Uber shows us how technology is shaking up how we work and live, while politicians are lagging behind.

Platform companies such as Uber and Airbnb work because they use algorithms, rather than staff, to match drivers to passengers, and apartments to travellers. But it's not just taxi drivers and travel agents who could get replaced by robots. The highly educated, professional middle class are under threat too. Telesurgery now allows surgeons hundreds of miles away to operate on patients and researchers are even predicting robot surgeons with artificial intelligence.

Those with the skills to develop and use ever more sophisticated technology stand to benefit but the unskilled are still most at risk. Amazon monitors its warehouse workers with GPS tags, and while the platform model of business enables flexible and autonomous working, that work is often precarious.

The steam train and the printing press generated their fair share of fear and industrial struggle but the speed and scale of change sets today apart. As cab drivers, and eventually even Uber drivers, lose their sources of income (as driverless cars become commercially viable), we see the Mark Zuckerbergs and the Elon Musks accumulate wealth at a rate faster than the rest of us can countenance or counteract.

Technology can make us more productive, and raise wages, but only if people and machines complement each other. We will increasingly need education systems that develop intrinsically human skills in more people (not just elites). Those 'soft' skills are less likely to be automated and more likely to complement technology. Creativity, empathy and compassion will be the last human qualities to be automated.

If the new economy requires fewer, more highly-skilled workers, we may need to rethink how we spread income. In the past, the gains of economic growth were spread through wages and the welfare state. But if we want to make sure that those who want to work, can, more flexible and part-time jobs will be needed to distribute work and wages.

If people's skills don't catch up with technological change, then it's the people with the technology who will reap the reward of growth. But by taxing and redistributing wealth, we can give people a more equal chance of owning and benefiting from technology. Those who own the robots will own the new means of production. Those who invent the disaggregating web platforms will be the new 'masters of the universe'.

To make sure technological change benefits everyone, radical new ideas about spreading both human and financial capital need to be on the table. But what the debate about Uber shows is that we also need to talk about power and who holds it. After all, technology may be neutral but how it impacts on work and who benefits is not. Our politics - and public policy - will remain vital in shaping these outcomes, and ensuring that Uber works for us and we don't end up working for Uber.

Carys Roberts and Mathew Lawrence are researchers at the IPPR think tank, which recently published a collection of essays on the future of work.

-- This feed and its contents are the property of The Huffington Post, and use is subject to our terms. It may be used for personal consumption, but may not be distributed on a website.

]]>http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/natasha-hinde/nude-pics-twitter_b_7905220.htmlNatasha Hindehttp://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/natasha-hinde/nude-pics-twitter_b_7905220.html?utm_hp_ref=uk-tech&ir=UK+Tech
Thu, 30 Jul 2015 13:15:54 -0400
The event is quite difficult to revisit without a bit of bile building up in my throat because, well, it's just pretty darn disgusting. And the image has been burnt onto the insides of my eyelids for eternity.

Basically, I got sent a nude pic of some guy - front facing (you get the idea) - via the usually oh-so-tame social networking site, Twitter. And to say it was completely unexpected would be an understatement.

Here's how it went down... I'd just begun to prep a lovely heartwarming feature, biscuit in hand, when I saw that I had a notification from a mysterious 'Big Dave'.

I clicked to see what this Big Dave chap had to say and, hey presto, I'm confronted by a picture of a guy with giant balls and a tiny weiner, stepping out of the shower in a horror film-style bathroom and - this really takes the piss - he's asking me to "rate him".

Here's what went through my mind at that exact moment.

1. Uncertainty"Is that a naked man nestled in among my recent notifications?"

2. Realisation "WTF! THERE'S A NAKED MAN ON MY SCREEN?"

3. Curiosity "Why is this man naked? Who is he? Do I know him?"

4. Disgust "His downstairs area looks like a birds nest. Wait a second, this isn't even a selfie. Who on EARTH is taking this picture?!"

5. Hysterics "This is the most ridiculous thing that's happened this week. Oh you fool."

6. Outrage "How dare he send me a naked picture and ask me to rate him. Who does he think he is? What a twat!"

7. Being Borderline 'About To Puke' "This is really gross."

8. Over It (And Pretty Sassy Right Now)"I'm mature, I can deal with this, I just need to report this image and be done with it."

9. Ready For Revenge"I'm going to leave this now. But not before I write a blog post about the bastard."

Who knew you could feel so many things in such a short space of time?

Big Dave, whoever you are or wherever you may be, you get a 0/10. Now put your penis away, redecorate your bathroom and leave us women alone.

-- This feed and its contents are the property of The Huffington Post, and use is subject to our terms. It may be used for personal consumption, but may not be distributed on a website.

]]>http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/kevinodonnell/internet-dating-travel_b_7893760.htmlKevin O'Donnellhttp://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/kevinodonnell/internet-dating-travel_b_7893760.html?utm_hp_ref=uk-tech&ir=UK+Tech
Thu, 30 Jul 2015 12:56:32 -0400
I should actually message the girl and ask her what on earth she's thinking. It's like a shotgun wedding where you're pointing the gun at yourself. What if a week in she figures out that he's a freak or he figures out that she always lets him buy one more round of beer than he does? You'd have to have an awkward kind of break-up, leading to shattered self-esteem for the person on the receiving end of the line "You're great, I just think we should maybe travel with different people."

Maybe I'm just being cynical. They could become best friends, they could even make a great couple and after the two months they'd planned they might continue this lovely new romance. Maybe they'd have a couple of kids, watch them grow up and one day let them wander around the world with strangers they've picked up on the internet.

I don't know, it just seems to defeat the purpose of solo travel for me. I went away when I was 19, I knew one person in Tasmania who I'd eventually link in with and that was the extent of it. The most beneficial thing about this was that suddenly I was without a support net. I had to approach people, I had to force myself to be social rather than just sit in my room playing my Gameboy. This is a great thing. It's something not everyone gets a chance to do and it's an amazing opportunity. By being alone I had to seek company where I never would have looked and this led me to make some really amazing friends, friends I never ever would have made had I been with a girlfriend, friend, cousin or some weirdo I met on the internet. I know; I travelled with a girlfriend later on and that support net made me less social to strangers.

Maybe it's a good thing. The Internet is a new forum for travellers to meet on and maybe there are friends to be made there that I'll never make outside of that. It's making the global community a more integrated and accessible concept. It possibly makes travel safer, the girl who's picture I saw will surely be a lot safer travelling along with a guy who looks like a serial killer, at least that'll keep the other serial killers at bay. It makes things more comfortable, none of that crippling anxiety about making no friends and having to sit alone in a bar while everyone else is having fun, you've already got your pre-arranged friend so sitting alone isn't an option. I'm sure it would make things easier too, two heads are better than one in a crisis. But that's not what travels all about, it's not supposed to be safe, it's not supposed to be comfortable and it's not supposed to be easy. If it were all those things your boring uncle who hasn't made much of himself would be strapping on the backpack and heading off to cross the Darien Gap.

I'm not going to pontificate on the evils of technology because I'm even getting bored of myself going on about that. If people want to bubble-wrap themselves against the dangers and difficulties that make travelling such a beautiful thing then I say let them. I'll stick to the old fashioned way, one hand outstretched, a beer in the other and I'll probably start with something like "Hi".

-- This feed and its contents are the property of The Huffington Post, and use is subject to our terms. It may be used for personal consumption, but may not be distributed on a website.

]]>http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/celina-teague/social-media-shame_b_7894850.htmlCelina Teaguehttp://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/celina-teague/social-media-shame_b_7894850.html?utm_hp_ref=uk-tech&ir=UK+Tech
Thu, 30 Jul 2015 08:42:49 -0400
I deal with the matter of the hashtag very differently in my show but the train of thought has led me to believe that Twitter is turning us into a nasty surveillance state. We're shaming people without considering the consequences and the punishments are outweighing the crimes. Anyone caught blurting out bigotry or ignorance on a public forum will be tarred and feathered within hours. Take Justine Sacco, the PR executive who tweeted, 'Going to Africa. Hope I don't get AIDS. Just kidding. I'm white.'

The tweet was sent to 170 twitter followers before she boarded her flight from JFK to South Africa. By the time she'd landed, the hashtag #HasJustineLandedYet had trended worldwide and a twitter user went to the airport to photograph her to post it online. In the meantime, she'd been sacked and had received thousands of angry messages and threats. 12 words had blown her life apart. The hotel workers at the hotel she'd booked were threatening to strike. Nobody could guarantee her safety at her destination and her family - who are active civil rights supporters in South Africa - were ashamed. Her only hope was a time machine.

More recently, we've seen another act of self-harm in the news. Nobel prize winning scientist Tim Hunt gave a keynote speech and said that women in the science lab were distracting because 'you fall in love with them, they fall in love with you and when you criticise them they cry'. His comments, semi-satirical I'm guessing, and probably intended to be humorous, went viral and were used as a weapon to 'hang him out to dry'. It was a flippant comment that launched a thousand op ed pieces all over the world. A journalist who probably wanted to boost her own twitter following started the hashtag #distractinglysexy, which fanned the flames beautifully. Before you know it, the savage vultures arrived to pick at the flesh of the 72 year old academic. Female scientists from all over the world posted images of themselves online, Hunt resigned from his post, his life and career in shreds. Professor Richard Dawkins came out in support of Hunt and said that his remark was "light-hearted banter against himself."

This cruel game of mob justice anytime someone says something stupid or mildly offensive runs the risk of creating a society of people who are terrified of saying anything that might shake things up. We are losing our sense of humour and displaying a remarkable lack of tolerance. The twittersphere is a practical thought police - conform or die. Ironic since social media purports to be a voice for all. Sacco made a ridiculous comment but I don't think she deserved to have her life ripped apart but this is the age that we live in now.

As Monica Lewinsky said recently, scandal is brought to us by the digital revolution. After being swept up in what she calls her 'improbable romance', aged 22 with the President of the United States, Bill Clinton, the news broke online. Lewinsky says, "It was the first time the traditional news was usurped by the internet for a major news story. I went from being a completely private figure to a publicly humiliated one worldwide." Lewinsky says that this was prior to social media but it moved an international community of shamers to comment online and brand her as international strumpet. In her recent Ted talk she said that since her affair exploded into world news 17 years ago, humiliation has become a commodity and shame is an industry. We're now in a cycle of clickabillity - she says, "the more we click on gossip, the more numb we get to the human lives behind it, the more numb we get, the more we click."

While I do still love Facebook and Instagram, I feel like Twitter is becoming this waiting room where opportunists bide their time until they can pounce on and get the bandwagon rolling over their next target. Hang around long enough in this toxic virtual cafeteria and you'll find someone to demonise and something to rant about. What's so shocking is that so many of them seem to be on the 'liberal' left, all fisticuffs and ready to cause trouble. The destruction of someone's life and livelihood as retribution for a daft comment does not fit the crime. Let he who is without sin cast the first stone. Lewinsky's Ted talk has given us food for thought, several courses in fact. I agree with her whole-heartedly when she says we need to be more compassionate. We should try to "imagine walking a mile in someone else's headline."

-- This feed and its contents are the property of The Huffington Post, and use is subject to our terms. It may be used for personal consumption, but may not be distributed on a website.

]]>http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/david-akka/big-data_b_7885808.htmlDavid Akkahttp://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/david-akka/big-data_b_7885808.html?utm_hp_ref=uk-tech&ir=UK+Tech
Thu, 30 Jul 2015 06:01:28 -0400
Recent advances in digital production and distribution by Netflix, Hulu, and Redbox have extended the overall productivity and reach of the film industry resulting in fierce competition for financing films.The increasing availability of data coupled with the abundance of sophisticated technologies, tools, and applications gives filmmakers an opportunity to forecast revenue before a movie is released.

Now the decision making power of Big Data has gone even further. Netflix used Big Data to select House of Cards and its actors, and actually knew it would be a big hit before they aired ; and Share Dimension in the Netherlands is recommending where and when films should be shown to maximise revenues. The latest development is news of Vault, a startup with an analytics engine that can read film scripts and recommend changes as well as highlighting the best actors, studios and locations for the film.

The big question around analytics technology like this is whether it will be accepted by the industry. There's certainly plenty of evidence to suggest that a change is needed:

- Studios are increasingly reliant on their biggest titles, which have migrated from being "summer blockbusters" to a year-round carnival
- Industry experts such as Spielberg have predicted that studios will not be able to survive a few of these films failing
- Audiences are becoming more choosy about which films they see, as ticket prices rise and alternatives become more compelling
- The industry has been casting around for "gimmicks" such as 3D and now VR which audiences have not accepted
- Films increasingly need to be globally successful and need to somehow appeal to ever-broader audiences

To me, this looks like an industry ripe for disruption, where executives are used to gambling and where the opportunity cost of refusing the new technology (while their rivals adopt it) is likely to outweigh reluctance to embrace algorithms. It looks a lot like the financial services industry in the 1980's.

This is also the moment where Big Data entrepreneurs will be able to turn a vision into reality and change the world, by bringing the benefits of Big Data to the masses. Big Data, analytics, and tools are changing the world, but just because they can read scripts and correlate data sets doesn't mean that human intelligence no longer has a role. In fact, I would argue that these algorithms will free human data scientists from the activities they (objectively) aren't so good at, giving them better information with which to make the creative decisions the computers can't.

The examples above show that Big Data isn't only becoming available to smaller businesses, but that it's affecting industries that were considered very difficult to disrupt. If highly creative film and TV industries; strongly regulated and private medical research industries; and the subjective and human-taste world of chefs are being disrupted by Big Data, it's unlikely that any industry is immune.

With Big Data crossing the chasm, within a few years most industries will have been thoroughly disrupted and creating significant new innovations will be difficult. Today, businesses have the opportunity to get ahead of their competitors by hiring data science teams and embracing Big Data.

There is a lot more innovation like this still to come, especially in transportation, logistics and healthcare. If data scientists want to be part of this trend and apply their skills to solve some of the biggest challenges, they will need to think outside the box and tackle big problems that have big rewards.

In order to make the most of Big Data and the disruption it will bring, this is the ideal time for companies to start preparing, identify how Big Data can make a difference to their business and build a strategy around it; hire a Big Data team with the right mix of people for their size and challenges; and invest in the right tools, bearing in mind that the right tool may quickly change during a disruptive time.

-- This feed and its contents are the property of The Huffington Post, and use is subject to our terms. It may be used for personal consumption, but may not be distributed on a website.

]]>http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/naomi-climer/girls-in-stem_b_7887272.htmlNaomi Climerhttp://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/naomi-climer/girls-in-stem_b_7887272.html?utm_hp_ref=uk-tech&ir=UK+Tech
Wed, 29 Jul 2015 07:52:21 -0400
The research also showed that parents could be limiting their child's future career decisions by having outdated perceptions of the jobs they think boys and girls are interested in.

I find it frustrating that so many girls could be potentially missing out on creative and fulfilling careers in engineering because they're not hearing about the possibilities from their key influencers.

In an ideal world, as well as parents, schools would also be responsible for informing children, especially girls, about engineering from an early age. But of course this is not always the case, with a range of subjects competing for prominence in school syllabuses.

Of course, schools do focus on subjects which are crucial to the foundations of engineering such as maths and science. But, I think the link between the core subjects and the exciting, creative and diverse careers within engineering which may have appealed to women, is made too late or not at all. This in turn could be a reason for the lack of girls considering a job in the industry.

This brings me to ask, what can other organisations do to help solidify the link between STEM subjects and engineering? Promisingly, recent IET research shows that 72 per cent of parents said if they were exposed to more information about engineering as a career option they would encourage their children to consider pursuing one. This could have a staggering impact then if we, as industry professionals, took responsibility for this and provided them with informative resources. Similarly, 71 per cent of children say they would be interested in an engineering career when shown inspirational information about the creativity and breadth of opportunities within the industry. So, surely we should be using this insight to show off the amazing jobs in engineering?

With this in mind, we need to support schools, parents and, young people by giving them opportunities and information which could inspire them. This month, the IET has launched the Engineering Open House Day in the UK to support of its Engineer a Better World campaign. The IET has joined forces with some rather impressive venues, such as the Royal Opera House, ITN Studios and many more, in order to showcase the exciting career options an engineering job could hold.

The nationwide events are taking place on 31 July and will be a fantastic opportunity for parents and young people to fully immerse themselves in an engineering experience. Most importantly, attendees will have the chance to speak directly to engineering experts to find out more about their career backgrounds and why the industry appealed to them.

We know that more can be done to demonstrate the links between theory and practice of STEM disciplines, and Engineering Open House Day helps to support this. I feel it is important for organisations to take matters in to their own hands by offering extra-curricular activities like this. Open Doors initiatives are an invaluable way of introducing people to sectors which they may have otherwise known little or nothing about.

There is no easy solution to bridge the skills gap the industry faces. But I hope that Engineering Open House Day will spark interest and inspiration in a number of young minds for many years to come helping to generate the talent and skills the industry needs for the future.

-- This feed and its contents are the property of The Huffington Post, and use is subject to our terms. It may be used for personal consumption, but may not be distributed on a website.

]]>http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/wayne-beynon/online-piracy_b_7880522.htmlWayne Beynonhttp://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/wayne-beynon/online-piracy_b_7880522.html?utm_hp_ref=uk-tech&ir=UK+Tech
Wed, 29 Jul 2015 07:25:25 -0400
Ten years may seem disproportionate to some people - after all the theft of a car only carries with it a sentence of 6-24 months. However, it just goes to show how seriously authorities are taking the war on piracy (a war which they are currently losing).

In the wake of the announcement, the police were keen to stress that this law is not aimed at small-time downloaders of content, but at those who serially distribute content online for others to download, in many cases before the new content has even been officially released.

This, in itself, is interesting. It feels like not so long ago that the government and the creative industries were rallying together, threatening to punish, jail, and impose hefty fines on everyone who illegally downloads content. However, very quickly it became clear that this was not only slightly draconian, but actually impossible to police. Now, it seems that the creative industries, police, and government alike are wise to the fact that such a policy is unenforceable, instead deciding to try and stamp out the problem at its source by targeting the content distributors.

Whilst creative industries are jubilant about the new proposals, for such a law to have effect, the authorities first need to prove that it is enforceable. Online piracy has always proved to be a tricky issue for rights holders and authorities alike. Evidence shows that it's so widespread that punishing everyone involved would literally be impossible. For example, the finale of the latest season of HBO's Game of Thrones was downloaded by 1.5 million people in the UK within 8 hours of its initial broadcast in the USA. Recent government statistics from July 2015 counted the British prison population at 86,300. Hypothetically, if we were to imprison everyone who acquired an illicit copy of Thrones that day, we'd have to increase the British prison capacity by seventeen times.

So, stamping out those who distribute the content would seem like the most sensible option. But - as with any illicit market - when you remove one distributor, another will pop up in their place. So how do we deal with this? In my view, a crackdown on distributors needs to be coupled with an increased emphasis on paid-for streaming services.

Seemingly the reason that people download content illegally is the instant access it allows - more than one million Game of Thrones fans downloaded the aforementioned episode so that they didn't have to wait for it to appear on Sky Atlantic in the UK (which typically broadcasts episodes the following evening). In this information age, where potential spoilers lurk around every corner, people want to be there first.

Of course, in recent years, streaming services have developed to offer this. Netflix, NOW TV, and others will frequently upload copies of hit US dramas for their users to view mere minutes after they've finished airing on the other side of the pond. However, not all hit shows are covered by such services, which is why the pirate market continues to boom.

It's not just the film and TV industries that are problematic either. The music industry is - if anything - even more so. In recent years - while cinemas still manage to pull in decent crowds, and TV shows that get good ratings can claw in ad revenue, the music industry has arguably been hit the hardest. With music available from a range of legal free sources including YouTube and Spotify, and illegal sources like the Pirate Bay, album sales have plummeted.

Taylor Swift had a high profile spat with Spotify last year when she pulled the entirety of her back catalogue from the service in a dispute over royalties. This was no small setback for the Swedish tech firm; 25% of their users had streamed at least one of Swift's tracks. The small subscription fees paid to use Spotify and similar services often results in artists getting a raw deal.

And Swift was far from the only artist angered by the current state of affairs, as evidenced by the launch of the much-derided streaming service, Tidal. Launched earlier this year by a star-studded roster of partners including Jay-Z, Kanye West, and Coldplay's Chris Martin, the service offered higher audio quality than its competitors while offering a fairer deal for musicians thanks to its higher subscription fee and no free option. However, the wheels soon began to fall off as media commentators, Twitter users, and even other musicians began to point out that the partners had a combined wealth of $2.8bn. Jay-Z, the owner, is worth $560m. The service was quickly labelled a cash-grab by people who were already very well off. In May, it was reported that Tidal had 800,000 users; at the last count Spotify had 15 million paying users.

Until now, Spotify has gone more or less unchallenged in the music streaming market, but that could be set to change. Google, Apple, and Facebook have all announced their own music services, and you wouldn't bet against any of them carving out a significant slice of the market for themselves. Will any of these offer a fairer deal for rights holders? Only time will tell.

So, as the new sentencing proposals look set to crack down on illegal distributors, it may be the right time for a competitive streaming market to take centre stage. Spotify's low subscription fee has proven a hit with consumers, but annoyed certain sectors of the music industry. Tidal on the other hand proved popular with artists, but the high subscription fee means that it's remained largely unsuccessful so far. Spotify and Tidal can be viewed as two extremes on a spectrum. To please both consumers and creators, a middle ground must be found, which offers an affordable alternative to pirating content for free - while at the same time offering sufficient royalties to rights holders in order to keep them onside.

Rights holders may well see the latest crackdown on illegal downloading as a chance to recoup some of the losses suffered through piracy, but it seems likely that they will be forced to embrace the changing media landscape and the lower royalty rates that go with it. After all, if consumers decide that content is priced too high, history tells us that they will find a way to get their hands on it for free. The new legislation can be effective, but it needs to be coupled with improved relations and co-operation between industry and streaming companies. This - I believe - may be the key to stamping out online piracy once and for all.

-- This feed and its contents are the property of The Huffington Post, and use is subject to our terms. It may be used for personal consumption, but may not be distributed on a website.

]]>http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/stephen-ebbett/apple-pay-uk_b_7887404.htmlStephen Ebbetthttp://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/stephen-ebbett/apple-pay-uk_b_7887404.html?utm_hp_ref=uk-tech&ir=UK+Tech
Tue, 28 Jul 2015 15:51:46 -0400
But don't all go flocking to the shops without your wallet. Apple Pay is still only reserved for those with newer iPhone models. Only the iPhone 6, the iPhone 6 Plus and the Apple Watch are compatible with Apple Pay, so if you want to join the elites, you'll have to upgrade.

Let's wade through the hype surrounding this exclusive club and ask: do we actually need Apple Pay, or is this just a cunning way to get us all upgrading?

The security is impressive. A system called tokenisation makes payments safer than ever before. That's because your phone does not have access to your card number, so bank details are never actually shared with the terminal.

Also, like contactless payments, Apple Pay transactions are limited to £20, making it that bit harder for phone thieves to go on spending sprees. Apple Pay can be disabled if your phone is stolen, although it is unlikely that a thief will have access to your fingerprint to activate a payment, unless you're also missing a hand.

This is all crucial stuff. The only way to assuage consumer fears over security and fraud, and there are many, is to ensure your security features are impenetrable.

A whole host of banks and shops have already signed up to use Apple Pay, from Waitrose, Pret a Manger and Liberty, to McDonalds and Lidl. It's already got reach as Apple Pay is available at around a quarter of a million locations across the UK. And the UK should be more receptive, as we're more used to contactless payments than consumers in the US.

But two weeks in, and Apple Pay is already experiencing some teething problems, notably on the London Underground. TFL has warned travellers that they could be charged the £8.80 maximum fare for a single journey if their phone battery dies mid-trip - and they could be liable for an even heftier fine if a ticket inspector can't read their dead Watch or iPhone.

Things for HSBC haven't gone quite so smoothly either, with customers who expected to be able to use Apple Pay taking to Twitter to vent their frustrations over delays. HSBC are set to join their fellow financial institutions in the Apple Pay club by the end of the month.

So are we on track towards a cash-less and card-less society? All in all, these appear to be minor hiccups. And when you're trying to disrupt an entire industry, teething trouble is par for the course.

Apple Pay seems to have hit the ground running here in the UK and it - along with the inevitable next set of mobile-payment-providing newcomers to the market - may well revolutionise the payment marketplace, when enough of us have upgraded to newer iPhone models of course.

-- This feed and its contents are the property of The Huffington Post, and use is subject to our terms. It may be used for personal consumption, but may not be distributed on a website.

]]>http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/anne-longfield/growing-up-digital_b_7887928.htmlAnne Longfieldhttp://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/anne-longfield/growing-up-digital_b_7887928.html?utm_hp_ref=uk-tech&ir=UK+Tech
Tue, 28 Jul 2015 11:47:41 -0400
iRights has shown that there is a collective civil concern. It has engaged with young people and found them bewildered and angered by their loss of power and control online. It has worked with the legal profession to analyse the legal basis of children's digital engagement and has worked with technology companies and the wider digital industry.

There is little doubt that the digital revolution is changing childhood. Entertainment has moved away from the social sphere - a family grouped around the telly - and into the private, personalised sphere of the bedroom; increasingly accessed via YouTube and other media sites. Children no longer expect to play out with their neighbours but regularly engage in a digital world of online games with unknown actors from across the globe.

The potential for creativity, for knowledge and innovation is immense. But it carries challenges with it which are unprecedented. We should remember that the internet was not designed with children in mind yet children are some of the greatest users. A child whose hands cannot yet write the letter 'A' now literally has the world at her fingertips via internet enabled touchscreen technology. Around 85% of teenagers have a smart phone. If children are to grow up digitally we need to ensure the rights they enjoy in the physical world extend to the digital world they inhabit.

Whilst young people seem to have the technical skills to negotiate the internet they may not have the social skills. Unable to disconnect, unknowing about the online world, careless of their own data, too often young people are walking blind into world wide web alleyways of risk.

That's why the iRights frame, safeguard and empower children and young people: the right to remove information, to know who is holding information on them, to make informed choices, to safety online and support if needed and the right to learn online. The iRights initiative aims to encourage all companies and organisations with a digital footprint to give a universal standard of pledges to help protect and inform young people online - the right to remove, to safety, to know, to make informed choices and to digital literacy.

These developments lead to a powerful conclusion. If children of today and tomorrow are to grow up digitally, we need to be sure that their rights to protection and empowerment are extended to cover the new digital world they inhabit. Frankly, the adult world and the regulatory rule book, just aren't set up to manage this brave new world. As the legal guardian of children's rights and best interests in England, this is of serious concern to me.

This is why I am today announcing a new taskforce - Growing Up Digital - which will begin its work in the autumn. Bringing together experts with young people, the group will examine and explore children's experiences, ambitions, needs and concerns about the digital world and examine and challenge the industry response. My goal is nothing less than a new digital settlement for young people.

This taskforce will build on the important work of iRights to create a new digital aspect of United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child recognising the new reality of growing up digital. With growing understanding we have an opportunity to make real and lasting improvements to children's digital lives - present and future.

Anne Longfield is the Children's Commissioner for England

-- This feed and its contents are the property of The Huffington Post, and use is subject to our terms. It may be used for personal consumption, but may not be distributed on a website.